|A whistle-blower bringing a False Claims Act lawsuit is asking the Supreme Court to overturn a D.C. Circuit decision that found that Kellogg Brown & Root was not required to disclose certain documents requested during discovery because of the attorney-client privilege.|
Resolving a question about the confidentiality of communications with in-house attorneys, a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in June determined that under the privilege, KBR could withhold 89 documents relating to an internal probe about potential kickbacks in Iraq.
The D.C. Circuit Sept. 2 denied a request for an en banc rehearing.
In his Dec. 1 petition for certiorari, whistle-blower Harry Barko claims that the D.C. Circuit applied the incorrect standard for granting KBR's petition for mandamus in vacating an order by U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge James Gwin, who ruled in March that the attorney-client privilege did not apply to the requested documents.
Barko claims that the D.C. Circuit's decision “expressly contradicted” the Supreme Court's landmark mandamus-related ruling in Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 550 U.S. 100 (2009).
According to the petition, the appellate court granted mandamus review “without stringent adherence to the three-part mandamus test set forth” by the Supreme Court, which deepens a circuit split and creates...
Saturday, December 13, 2014
Plaintiff Petitions US Supreme Court About D.C. Circuit Attorney KBR Privilege Case
Today's post is shared from bna.com
[Click here to see the rest of this post]